coastalcph/lex_glue huggingface dataset:
5.  The applicant was born in 1960 and lives in Florence.
6.  A.C., C.G. and G.G. were the owners of a flat in Florence, which they had let to R.F.
7.  In a registered letter of 29 June 1987, the owners informed the tenant that they intended to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 31 December 1987 and asked him to vacate the premises by that date.
8.  In a writ served on the tenant on 9 September 1988, the owners reiterated their intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Florence Magistrate.
9.  By a decision of 18 October 1988, which was made enforceable on 23 November 1988, the Florence Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 13 October 1989.
10.  In the meanwhile, on 4 April 1989, the applicant became the owner of the flat and pursued the enforcement proceedings.
11.  On 14 November 1989, the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring him to vacate the premises.
12.  On 5 December 1989, she informed the tenant that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 26 January 1990.
13.  Between 26 January 1990 and 22 January 1999, the bailiff made twenty attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicant was never granted the assistance of the police in enforcing the order for possession.
14.  On 17 May 1990, the applicant made a statutory declaration that she urgently required the premises as accommodation for herself.
15.  On 11 October 2000, the applicant recovered possession of the flat.
4.  The applicant was born in 1944 and lives in Kumanovo.
5.  On 4 August 1995 the Kumanovo Employment Bureau (“the Bureau”) (Републичкиот завод за вработување - Биро за вработување Куманово) granted the applicant, who had been laid off, a monthly unemployment compensation, the amount of which equalled the minimum salary reduced by 20%.
6  On 28 August 1995 the applicant appealed the decision before the Ministry of Labour and Social Policy (“the Ministry”) (Министерство за труд и социјална политика), alleging that his compensation had been miscalculated. He claimed that the amount of compensation should be based on the average of his last three monthly salaries reduced by 50%.
7.  As the Ministry remained inactive, the applicant instituted administrative contentious proceedings before the Supreme Court (Врховен суд на Република Македонија).
8.  On 24 April 1997 the Supreme Court rejected his appeal as he had failed to re-introduce his complaint with the Ministry before instituting the administrative contentious proceedings.
10.  On 27 August 1997 the Bureau, which transmits administrative complaints to the Ministry, rejected his complaint finding that he had already appealed the first-instance decision and that the Supreme Court’s decision of 24 April 1997 had not provided instructions for further remedies.
11.  On 15 December 1997 the applicant filed a new appeal with the Supreme Court, complaining about the Ministry’s inactivity and the rejection of his prior complaint. The Ministry did not reply to the applicant’s pleadings nor did it provide the Supreme Court with the requested documents.
12.  On 28 April 1999 the Supreme Court granted the applicant’s appeal and ordered the Ministry to decide upon his complaint of 28 August 1995 within 30 days from the serving of its decision. The Supreme Court also held that the Bureau had unjustifiably rejected the applicant’s appeal instead of transmitting it to the Ministry for consideration.
13.  As the Ministry remained inactive, the applicant took another action before the Supreme Court to decide on the merits.
14.  On 6 October 1999 the Supreme Court annulled the Bureau’s decision from 1995 and remitted the case for re-examination.
17.  As it remained inactive, on 7 February 2000 the applicant re-introduced his claim before the Ministry.
18.  It appears that the applicant instituted administrative contentious proceedings before the Supreme Court on account of the inactivity of the Ministry.
19.  In the meantime, on an unspecified date prior to 15 August 2000, the Ministry upheld the Bureau’s decision of 26 November 1999. This decision was allegedly served on the applicant on 18 August 2000.
20.  On 27 June 2001 the Supreme Court upheld the Ministry’s decision, finding that the applicant’s unemployment benefit had been calculated in accordance with the law.
4.  The applicant was born in 1957 and lives in Rostov-on-Don.
5.  The applicant was engaged in emergency operations at the site of the Chernobyl nuclear plant disaster. As a consequence, he was entitled to certain social benefits.
6.  In 2001 the applicant was placed on a waiting list for free housing. As the Kirovskiy District Administration did not provide him with a flat within three months, the applicant sued the administration.
7.  On 19 December 2001 the Kirovskiy District Court of Rostov-on-Don allowed the applicant’s claim against the Kirovskiy District Administration for the provision of housing. It ordered that the administration:
“...provide [the applicant’s] family of five - [the applicant], his wife, his son, his daughter and his mother - with other comfortable living premises within three months after the entry of the judgment into force”.
8.  No appeal was brought against the judgment and on 4 January 2002 it became final.
9.  On 24 January 2002 the bailiffs’ service opened enforcement proceedings. However, the judgment could not be enforced because the town administration possessed no available housing or financial resources to purchase a flat.
10.  On 10 August 2003 the applicant’s mother died.
11.  On 28 October 2004 the Mayor of Rostov-on-Don issued an order allocating a three-room flat measuring 81.7 square metres in the Blagodatnaya Street to the applicant’s family of four.
12.  The bailiffs asked the Kirovskiy District Court to stay the enforcement proceedings until the completion of the construction works on the block of flats in the Blagodatnaya Street. In the alternative, they requested to amend the method of enforcement and to order that the Kirovskiy District Administration should pay the applicant the monetary value of the flat.
13.  On 1 December 2004 the Kirovskiy District Court dismissed the bailiffs’ request.
14.  On 24 January 2005 the Rostov Regional Court quashed that decision and remitted the matter for a new examination. The proceedings are now pending.
15.  By a letter of 14 December 2004 the Chief Bailiff of the Kirovskiy District bailiffs’ service informed the applicant that the bailiffs had fined the Kirovskiy District Administration five times for their failure to execute the judgment of 19 December 2001. It was not possible to collect the fines because the administration’s funds were allocated for specific purposes.
16.  The applicant has not yet received an occupancy voucher in respect of either the flat in the Blagodatnaya Street or any other flat.
17.  It appears that the judgment of 19 December 2001 remains unenforced to date.
4.  The applicant was born in 1953 and lives in Senec.
5.  On 10 February 1999 a company sued the applicant for a sum of money which he allegedly owed for the lease of his flat and for services provided by the company.
6.  On 27 May 1999 the Bratislava III District Court issued a payment order under which the applicant was obliged to pay the equivalent of approximately 1,000 euros to the plaintiff.
7.  On 10 June 1999 the applicant challenged the payment order. The case was therefore to be heard by the first instance court in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure.
8.  The District Court held hearings on 18 May 2000, on 12 June 2000, on 11 September 2000 and on 9 October 2000. At the last mentioned hearing the plaintiff extended the action.
9.  On 27 March 2003 the District Court appointed an expert and asked him to submit an opinion.
10.  On 1 December 2003 the judge instructed the court’s registry to transmit the file to the expert. The expert received the file on 29 December 2003. He submitted his opinion to the court on 24 February 2004.
11.  On 4 May 2004 the District Court decided on the expert’s fee. The expert opinion was delivered to the parties on 13 and 14 May 2004 respectively. On 1 June 2004 the applicant submitted his comments on it.
12.  Hearings before the District Court were held on 27 September 2004 and on 11 October 2004. A hearing scheduled for 2 December 2004 was adjourned.
13.  In May 2005 the applicant informed the Court that there had been no further progress in the case.
14.  On 11 March 2003 the applicant filed a complaint about the length of proceedings to the Constitutional Court. He claimed, inter alia, 800,000 Slovakian korunas (SKK) in compensation for non-pecuniary damage.
15.  On 13 August 2003 the Constitutional Court found that the applicant’s right to a hearing without unjustified delay had been violated and ordered the District Court to proceed with the case without further delays. The decision stated that the District Court had remained inactive between 15 June 1999 and 28 January 2000, that is for more than 7 months, and also between 9 October 2000 and 27 March 2003, that is for more than 29 months.
16.  The Constitutional Court dismissed the applicant’s claim for compensation noting that the applicant had by his conduct considerably contributed to the fact that the dispute had come into being and that the proceedings had been protracted, since in particular he had not regularly paid the sums due and the company therefore had to extend the action. The Constitutional Court ordered the District Court to reimburse the costs related to the constitutional proceedings to the applicant.
4.  The first applicant was born in 1959. The second applicant was born in 1947. They both reside in Kharkiv.
5.  On 4 October 2000 the Moskovsky District Court of Kharkiv ordered the Kharkiv enterprise “Serp i Molot”, which is an enterprise in which the State owns 90% of the shares (hereafter referred to as the “KESM”), to pay the first applicant UAH 23,963.78[1] for salary arrears, and compensation for the delay in that payment (for the period between March 1998 and 1 August 2000) and moral damage.
6.  On 16 October 2000 the Moskovsky District Bailiffs’ Service initiated the enforcement proceedings.
7.  On 5 November 2002 the Commercial Court of the Kharkiv Region initiated bankruptcy proceedings against the KESM and, therefore, the Bailiffs’ Service suspended the execution of the judgment. In accordance with the plan for the financial recovery of the enterprise, the applicant received UAH 100 in compensation.
8.  On 7 March 2003 the Kharkiv Regional Department of Justice informed the applicant that the enforcement was still pending because of these bankruptcy proceedings.
9.  On 31 December 2003 the applicant received UAH 100[2] in partial payment of the judgment debt.
10.  On 29 January 2004 the applicant received UAH 7,529.05[3] in further partial payment of the debt owed by the KESM.
11.  On 8 November 2004 the applicant informed the Court that he had received payment for the remainder of the debt (UAH 16,434.73[4]) on 6 October 2004. The enforcement proceedings were terminated on the same date. The payment was made on the basis of funds transferred to the account of the KESM, as approved by the Head of the Kharkiv Regional Administration on 10 March 2004.
II.  THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF APPLICATION NO. 6717/03
12.  On 4 October 2000 the Moskovsky District Court of Kharkiv ordered the KESM to pay the second applicant UAH 21,170.19[5] in compensation for the delayed payment of salary arrears (for the period between March 1998 and 1 August 2000) and moral damage.
13.  On 16 October 2000 the Moskovsky District Bailiffs’ Service initiated the enforcement proceedings.
14.  On 5 November 2002 the Commercial Court of the Kharkiv Region initiated bankruptcy proceedings against the KESM and, therefore, the execution of the judgment was suspended.
15.  On 31 December 2003 the applicant received UAH 88[6] in partial payment of the judgment debt.
16.  On 29 January 2004 the applicant received 6,755.73[7] in further partial payment of the debt owed by the KESM.
17.  On 5 November 2004 the applicant informed the Court that he had received payment of the remainder of the debt (UAH 14,414.46[8]) on 6 October 2004. The enforcement proceedings were terminated on the same date. The payment was made on the basis of funds transferred to the account of the KESM, as approved by the Head of the Kharkiv Regional Administration on 10 March 2004.
4.  The applicant was born in 1936 and currently resides in Odessa. He is a former employee of the State Company “Chornomorske Morske Paroplavstvo” (the “CMP”).
5.  In 1997 the applicant instituted proceedings against the CMP in the Zhovtnevy District Court of Odessa, seeking the recovery of salary arrears.
6.  On 6 October 1998 the Zhovtnevy District Court of Odessa ordered the CMP to pay the applicant UAH 3,604[1] in compensation. The decision was not appealed and became final on 16 October 1998.
7.  On 18 December 2000 the Ministry of Justice informed the applicant that the judgment in his favour could not be immediately executed due to the CMP’s lack of funds. In particular, it noted that the CMP’s debts amounted to UAH 20,095,905, including salary arrears in the amount of UAH 5,067,027. They also stated that they were in the course of selling some of the CMP’s property and vessels belonging to it.
8.  On 28 May 2001 the Zhovtnevy District Prosecutor’s Office informed the applicant that the Bailiffs’ Service had frozen the CMP’s bank accounts, however they had been empty since 1997.
9.  On 26 December 2002 the applicant informed the Court that the judgment had been executed when, on 18 December 2002, he had been paid UAH 3,604[2].
4.  The applicant was born in 1946 and lives in the town of Askaniya-Nova, the Kherson region.
5.  By two separate decisions of 22 April 2002, the Chaplynsk Town Court ordered the State Agricultural Research Firm “Askaniya-Nova” to pay the applicant the total of UAH 10,101[1] in debts and compensation.
6.  On 27 June 2002 the Chaplynsk Town Bailiffs’ Service instituted enforcement proceedings.
7.  On 16 December 2002 the Kherson Regional Commercial Court initiated bankruptcy proceedings against the debtor. On 26 November 2003 the same court terminated these proceedings. On 23 May 2003 the court reinitiated bankruptcy proceedings against the debtor.
8.  On 2 December 2004 the Bailiffs’ Service informed the applicant that the judgment given in his favour could not be enforced due to the debtor’s lack of funds and the fact that the procedure for the forced sale of assets belonging to the debtor had been suspended because of the moratorium on the forced sale of property belonging to State enterprises introduced by the Law of 29 November 2001.
9.  The judgments in the applicant’s favour remain unenforced.
4.  The applicant was born in 1949 and currently resides in Donetsk. The applicant is a former employee of the State Skochinsky Mine (the “SSM”).
5.  In December 2000 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Kirovsky District Court of Donetsk (the “Kirovsky Court”) against the SSM, seeking recovery of salary arrears.
6.  On 24 January 2001 the Kirovsky Court ordered the SSM to pay the applicant UAH 9,349.78[1] in compensation.
7.  On 24 February 2001 the Kirovsky District Bailiffs’ Service of Donetsk (the “Bailiffs’ Service”) instituted enforcement proceedings.
8.  On 11 November 2002 the Bailiffs’ Service informed the applicant that the judgment could not be executed due to the SSM’s lack of funds. It also informed the applicant of the pending bankruptcy proceedings against the SSM and the ban imposed by the Donetsk Regional Commercial Court on the execution of judgments against the company.
9.  On 23 December 2002 the Donetsk Regional Commercial Court prohibited the collection by the Bailiffs’ Service of funds from the SSM’s accounts in view of the latter’s pending bankruptcy and financial recovery programme.
10.  On 7 February 2003 the Bailiff’s Service resumed the enforcement proceedings in the case. However, this decision was quashed by the Head of the Bailiffs’ Service in view of the bankruptcy proceedings pending against the SSM.
11.  On 3 March 2003 the Kirovsky Court awarded the applicant additional compensation for the unreasonable delay in the execution of the judgment and ordered the SSM to pay him UAH 826.98[2] in compensation.
12.  On 11 April 2003 the Donetsk Regional Commercial Court approved a friendly settlement reached between the SSM and its creditors, and terminated the bankruptcy proceedings.
13.  On 19 May 2003 the SSM requested the Kirovsky Court to change the debtor in the enforcement proceedings to the State Enterprise “Donetskvugillia”, which had become the SSM’s legal successor following the decision of the Ministry of Fuel and Energy.
14.  On 22 August 2003 the Bailiffs’ Service suspended the enforcement proceedings in the applicant’s case, awaiting the replacement of the debtor by the court.
15.  On 15 January 2004 the Kirovsky Court effected the replacement.
16.  On 11 May 2004 the applicant received the amount of UAH 9,309.88[3] awarded by the judgment of 24 January 2001 and UAH 826.88[4] awarded by the judgment of 3 March 2003.[*]
17.  On 18 May 2004 the Bailiffs’ Service discontinued the proceedings in the applicant’s case in view of the full enforcement of the judgments.
4.  The applicant was born in 1948 and lives in the village of Myrne, the Autonomous Republic of Crimea (the “ARC”).
5.  On 22 November 2000 the Zaliznodorozhnyi District Court of Simferopil (the “Zaliznodorozhnyi Court”) ordered the Zaliznodorozhnyi District Council of Simferopil to pay the applicant UAH 1,371.33[1] in health care allowances and salary arrears.
6.  On 30 January 2001 the Zaliznodorozhnyi District Bailiffs’ Service of Simferopil instituted enforcement proceedings.
7.  In August 2001 the applicant instituted proceedings in the same court against the council, seeking compensation for failure to enforce the judgment in his favour. On 25 October 2001 the court rejected his claim as unsubstantiated. The court held that the judgment was not enforced due to the lack of relevant allocations in the council’s budget, for which it could not be held responsible. On 21 January and 23 September 2002, respectively, the Court of Appeal of the ARC and the Supreme Court of Ukraine upheld that decision.
8.  In 2002 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Zaliznodorozhnyi Court against the Bailiffs’ Service for failure to enforce the judgment in his favour. On 15 May 2001 the court found for the applicant and ordered the Bailiffs’ Service to apply all the measures envisaged by the law to enforce the judgment.
9.  On 1 December 2003 the Bailiffs’ Service terminated the enforcement proceedings in view of the debtor’s lack of funds.
10.  The judgment in the applicant’s favour remains unenforced.
4.  The applicant was born in 1950 and lives in the town of Nova Kakhovka, the Kherson region.
5.  The State owns 75% of the shares in the Pivdenelektromash Company (hereafter “the Company), which is therefore subject to the moratorium on the forced sale of property of State-owned entities, barring the attachment and sale of its assets.
6.  On 5 June 2000 the Kherson Regional Court of Arbitration (hereafter “the Arbitration Court”) instituted bankruptcy proceedings against the Company and issued an injunction barring debt recovery. This decision led, inter alia, to the suspension of the enforcement of all court judgments given against the Company.
7.  Following the adoption of the ruling of the Supreme Court of Arbitration of 10 August 2000, which directed that the bankruptcy proceedings should not impede the execution of judgments awarding salary arrears, the Novokahovsky City Bailiffs’ Service (hereafter “the Bailiffs’ Service”) restarted enforcement proceedings against the Company in such cases.
8.  On 15 January 2001 the Arbitration Court approved a rehabilitation proposal and appointed a trustee to rehabilitate the Company’s business. On 17 January 2002 the court found that enforcement proceedings of any kind contradicted the June 2000 injunction, particularly in view of the pending rehabilitation programme, the success of which could be jeopardised if the Bailiffs’ actions continued (cf. Trykhlib v. Ukraine, no. 58312/00, 20 September 2005, §§ 7-14).
9.  The applicant is a former employee of the Company. In September 2002 he brought proceeding against it, claiming salary arrears. On 26 September 2002 the Nova Kakhovka City Court (hereafter “the City Court”) granted this claim and awarded the applicant UAH 2,517.58[1]. The judgment became final and was sent to the Bailiffs’ Service for compulsory enforcement.
10.  In a letter of 13 March 2003, the Bailiffs’ Service informed the applicant that the award could not be enforced due to the debtor’s lack of funds.
11.  On 9 December 2003 the Minister for Justice issued a circular letter, informing the Bailiffs that the injunction against debt collection in bankruptcy cases did not extend to warrants for the execution of judgments awarding salary arrears.
12.  On 15 January 2004 the Bailiffs’ Service resumed the execution proceedings in the applicant’s case. On 23 January 2004 it ordered the attachment of the Company’s accounts. However, on 27 February 2004 the Kherson Regional Commercial Court, on the trustee’s appeal, quashed these decisions because the Bankruptcy Act envisaged the obligatory suspension of enforcement proceedings pending the resolution of a bankruptcy case. The exemption of the payment of salary arrears from the general injunction against debt recovery concerned only the Company’s current salary expenditures (see Trykhlib v. Ukraine, cited above, § 20).
13.  The judgment of the City Court of 26 September 2002 remains unenforced.